Trwyddedau ar gyfer tafarndai, tacsis a digwyddiadau, ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol a safonau masnach.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Mae cynghorau'n gweithio gyda'r heddlu ac eraill ar ddiogelwch cymunedol, yn rhedeg teledu cylch cyfyng, yn trwyddedu tafarndai, tacsis a mangreoedd gamblo, ac yn delio ag ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol fel sŵn.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Mae penderfyniadau trwyddedu'n cael eu gwneud gan bwyllgor neu is-bwyllgor trwyddedu o gynghorwyr, sy'n clywed gan ymgeiswyr a gwrthwynebwyr.
Dweud eich dweud
Gallwch wrthwynebu cais am drwydded yn ystod ei gyfnod ymgynghori. Rhowch wybod i'r cyngor am sŵn ac ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol.
Wrthi'n llwytho
Fesul cyngor, y 12 mis diwethaf
Faint o eitemau agenda ar y pwnc hwn y deliodd pob cyngor â nhw, a faint oedd â phenderfyniad wedi'i gofnodi.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver overcharged for a journey from St Mary’s Street to Cathays and did not use the calibrated meter in order to determine the fare. There was also a double charge on the card used to pay for the journey.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that late on a Sunday night, he saw an intoxicated woman who wasn’t being allowed back into bars on St Mary’s Street being refused by other taxis. He could see that she was frustrated and wanted to help her get home. She said that she didn’t have enough cash and wasn’t sure how to use the card on her phone, so he passed her his phone with the payment app open so she could practise paying. She asked to give a £15 tip, which would mean paying around £25 for the journey rather than around £10. Her card was declined several times before it went through.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events, emphasising that she had not asked to tip him and was entirely aware of how to pay by card using her phone. She had only realised the next morning that she had been charged two payments of £25.70, which she called her bank to cancel because they were still pending. The two payments were eight minutes apart, so it seemed that the driver had taken two separate payments at the start and end of the journey.
The Sub Committee asked the driver about the double payment and heard that this may have been a technical issue with the payment app he used due to the declined payments. There was no physical receipt to give the passenger as the app sent him a notification of payments the next day.
Members queried whether the driver had asked for payment before the journey began, which was not permitted for fares within Cardiff. The driver responded that he had tried to help the passenger because she wasn’t sure how to use her phone to pay. The witness reiterated that she knew how to use her phone to pay by card, and suggested that the driver had not passed her his phone.
The driver’s representative suggested that there was evidence of the card being declined several times, and that the witness might have accidentally paid twice while drunk. He added that the money taken out of her account had been returned, and suggested that an honest mistake had been made. The witness emphasised that she was certain she had not accidentally tapped it twice.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he expressed sincere regret about his past actions and took full responsibility for what he had done.
Members noted that the applicant had applied for a licence recently and was refused then, and asked what had changed. The applicant explained that he was working 60 to 70 hours a week to support his family as the cost of living was very high, and he could make more money driving taxis.
RESOLVED – that the application be refused.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was arrested after a policeman pulled him over while driving and saw a bag of drugs in the car. He emphasised that they were not his and that he had passed a drug test, but had received a caution for possession of a Class A drug.
He added that since this had all taken place, he had moved back home, gotten married and taken on new responsibilities, and was keen to drive taxis. He understood the gravity of the situation but felt he was a more responsible person now.
RESOLVED – that the application be refused.
(4)
Item 4 was deferred to the next meeting in the absence of the witness.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver drove his licensed vehicle in a dangerous manner and used demeaning language.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was being accused of hitting a pedestrian and her luggage with his car. He explained that he had been working at the coach station when a coach came towards him so he had to pull into a parking bay on the side of the road. A woman was stood there with her luggage, so he beeped his horn and then rolled down his window and respectfully asked her to move.
He added that the woman then started shouting at him and accusing him of knocking over her luggage, before telling everyone else on the rank that he was a dangerous driver who had tried to hit her, which meant he got no business that night. He had driven taxis for 33 years and had been licensed in Cardiff for 26 years without any complaints being made against him, and emphasised that his car had not touched her luggage.
The Sub Committee viewed videos immediately following the incident provided by the witness. Members noted that the driver had cameras on the front and back of his vehicle and asked whether this footage was available. The driver explained that he normally deleted this after a week, and had not thought it was needed in this case as he was not contacted by the police.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she knew the area well and usually ordered a cab using her phone as the coach was getting in, before waiting in the same spot where there were several empty parking spaces. There was no pavement for pedestrians, only a muddy embankment, and she used a cane to help her walk.
She recalled that the taxi came by without stopping and without the driver asking her to move, and so she had to jump back to avoid being hit, with the car knocking her bags over. She asked the driver whether he had seen her and he said yes, so she asked why he had continued reversing, and he told her to shut up.
Both parties disputed whether or not the driver had beeped his horn or spoken to the witness before moving into the bay, and whether or not the taxi had knocked the luggage over. The driver’s representative acknowledged that the driver could have de-escalated the situation, and suggested that he keep the dashcam footage for longer than a week in the future.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had been issued with a caution by South Wales Police.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned in 2022 for a public order offence against a former partner who had stalked him. He did not feel he posed any danger to members of the public, and had driven taxis since 2006 with no complaints made against him.
The Sub Committee asked why he had only declared the caution on his renewal form rather than as soon as it happened. The driver explained that he had mistakenly believed this was only required for convictions, and apologised for the oversight.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared a previous conviction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, namely a small hammer which he had left on the seat of his taxi after using it to fix the wheelchair ramp.
He explained that a passenger had run off without paying after going from Cardiff to Cwmbran. The driver had waited outside his house for some time before speaking to someone else there, who persuaded the passenger to come out and pay up. The passenger claimed that he had followed him with a weapon and threatened him with it, so the driver called the police to explain.
The Sub Committee asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had emailed the council to inform them but had misspelt the email address.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To approve the Statement of Principles for Gambling (or ‘Gambling Licensing Policy’) 2025-2028, set out in Appendix B, for publication on 1 April 2025 and subsequently adopted for use from 12 May 2025;
2.
To authorise the Head of Shared Regulatory Services to make minor administrative amendments to the approved Statement from time to time, should the need arise.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and oral representations made on behalf of the applicant and by local residents, GRANTED the application.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, REFUSED the application.
The Sub Committee considered that the Cumulative Impact Policy applied in this case and no evidence was presented to support the view that the application was an exceptional application.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1 was deferred in the absence of the witness.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he displayed dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour including shouting and cursing at a pedestrian.
The driver’s representative noted that the report suggested that his licence had been suspended by the Sub Committee for 10 days in 2016, and clarified that this was not the case as no suspension was awarded upon appeal.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that two people were trying to cross the road in front of the New Theatre and the light was amber so he stopped. He didn’t know what triggered it but one of them came to his car and used foul language towards him. He straightened up his car and then drove off when the light turned green.
Members asked whether the driver had seen the CCTV video of the incident, which he had. Members viewed the video and suggested that it contradicted what he had said in his statement about his taxi being stationary until the light was green. His statement also suggested that the female pedestrian was not using any sort of support to cross the road, which the video showed she was. The driver reiterated that he stood by his statement, and added that all other pedestrians had crossed the road by the time his taxi reached the crossing.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he and his wife were walking back to their car and approached the crossing as the light for it was green. As they crossed the road, the light turned flashing amber, so they continued as they had right of way, relatively slowly as his wife was using a crutch. The taxi came round the corner quickly and came close to him, which he found particularly worrying as he’d had two knee replacements. The driver used abusive language towards him regarding his age, but he did not recall using any bad language himself. The taxi drove off and he noted down the numberplate in order to make a complaint.
The driver’s representative suggested that the crossing in front of the New Theatre often caused confusion between drivers and pedestrians as it lacked a crossing box. He acknowledged that the witness and the driver had different views about who had right of way, but disputed the suggestion that the driver was speeding round the corner.
The driver’s representative added that the video seemed to show the pedestrian speaking to the driver first. The witness acknowledged that the video showed him going to speak to the driver, but suggested that this was only because the driver had wound down the window and shouted at him. Otherwise, he would have continued walking.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received from South Wales Police stating that the driver committed a number of speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had not been driving his vehicle on most of the occasions listed in the report. Friends of his had used the car for private use rather than as a taxi and received speeding tickets, and one of these friends who had committed three of the offences had left the country for family reasons so he was hard to contact. The driver didn’t want to lose his livelihood so he took responsibility for the offences, accepted nine points on his licence and paid a fine. After that, South Wales Police had made a complaint to the licensing authority.
Members queried the details of specific offences provided in the report, where a number of different names were nominated as having been driving the vehicle at the time. The driver stated that one of the individuals was a friend of his, and another was the friend’s wife. Members noted that it had not been possible to trace either person and the police did not believe they existed. Members queried one of the offences where the driver had initially nominated his wife but then changed it to his own name and attended a speed awareness course. The driver apologised for making a mistake in this case.
Members noted that the driver’s wife had nominated herself as the driver on one form, and asked if the driver understood that he was the only person insured to drive his taxi as it was a licensed vehicle. The driver suggested that a number of his friends borrowed his vehicle on occasion as it was a large van, and their insurance covered it. The Legal Officer clarified that this was not the case. Only the licensed taxi holder could use the vehicle, and it was not possible to get private insurance to drive someone else’s taxi.
Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that there were historic offences going back to 2020, and the police took responsibility for failing to flag them up until now. He had been unable to track down several of the individuals nominated and suspected that they did not exist, and were certainly not insured to drive the vehicle. Other offences had been blamed on family members who had accepted they were driving at the time, which meant they would also have been uninsured.
The witness also suggested that the times of the offences, several of which had occurred after midnight, including on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, suggested that the vehicle was being used as a taxi at the time. He noted that the driver had admitted to three of the offences, taking three points and paying a fine, after being challenged. It was the police’s view that the driver had been driving the vehicle on all of the occasions listed, and had done everything possible to avoid being banned.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver committed three speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had misread the date of the offence on the first letter and nominated his wife as the driver of the vehicle at the time. This was an honest mistake rather than an attempt to falsify the form. He believed that the second offence was a mistake on the part of the authorities as his Uber log showed he was driving elsewhere at the time. On the third occasion, he believed he was giving his cousin a driving lesson and allowing her to drive the vehicle, but now realised that he had been the driver at that time.
Members asked how often his wife drove the taxi, and heard that he often took off the plates and allowed her to use it to go shopping. Members asked whether there had been L plates on the car when it was photographed speeding when he believed his cousin had been driving the car. The witness, representing South Wales Police, confirmed that there were not.
Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that it was an easy process to check who was driving the car at the time as he had access to logs through Uber. The driver was the only person insured to drive his licensed vehicle, and his wife and cousin were not. His cousin had taken the blame and attended a speed awareness course for an offence she had not committed.
Regarding the driver’s suggestion that one of the offences was a mistake by the authority, the witness noted that the job records from the time and date in question showed that the vehicle had picked up a fare close to the camera several minutes before the offence was committed. The police’s view was that the driver had dishonestly attempted to avoid punishment for speeding offences on a number of occasions.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his licence in respect of three speeding offences.
The Chair queried a pending driving offence from October 2024 referred to in the report. The driver responded that he had not received any information about this offence since then, and didn’t know why this was the case. The Chair suggested that the hearing be deferred to allow the pending offence to be resolved, so the Sub Committee could have the full information when considering the matter.
RESOLVED – that the case be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had accumulated nine points from three offences, two of which had been on the same day when a speed limit on Western Avenue changed from 40mph to 30mph. He was doing less taxi work now and more school runs.
Members asked whether the driver was aware of his responsibility to inform the licensing authority as soon as the offences were committed, rather than upon renewal more than a year later. The driver responded that he had not been aware of this and apologised for failing to do so.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had apologised for his mistake and accepted his punishment. He had been caught speeding twice in one day in an area where the limit had just changed, and on both occasions was going below the previous limit, so it was clearly an honest mistake.
Members queried how many points the driver had in total, and heard that he had received three in April 2023, six more in June 2023 and had three pending as of January 2025. Members noted that if the pending offence resulted in three more points, he would have to come before the Sub Committee again.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had six penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90).
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been convicted in January of this year, having unintentionally misidentified his wife as the driver of a vehicle he shared with her. He originally wrote her name down on the form but then realised he had been driving and took responsibility. He had received six points on his license as a result.
Members queried the delay between the offence in May 2024 and declaring it to the licensing authority in January 2025. The driver explained that he had to wait until January for his court hearing, after which he had declared it to the authority. The driver also clarified that the offence took place before he became qualified as a taxi driver in Cardiff, having been licensed in Newport before.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken,
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his DVLA licence. The driver had been referred to the Sub Committee and subsequently had his licence revoked.
The driver explained that he had been to the Sub Committee and been refused several times before. He didn’t have any additional evidence to prove his fitness but he had been a licensed driver for twelve years and never had any problems. He had tried to work in other jobs like security since losing his licence, but taxi driving was his passion. He was trying to support his family and getting his licence back would make a huge difference.
Members noted that the Sub Committee had revoked his licence in 2022 in line with its guidance after he had received 15 points, and had suggested that he reapply after five years. The driver emphasised that his offences had all been only slightly above the 30mph limit, in a private car rather than his taxi, and had been committed nearly five years ago.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application.
The Committee considered that there was no evidence presented to suggest that the application would undermine the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a speeding offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence.
The driver was not in attendance.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained when the name given on the NIP form was not the registered keeper of the car, the next step was to carry out an insurance check to find out whether they were insured on it. The police then contacted the licensing authority to find out whether they were a licensed taxi driver, which they were not.
On this occasion, when challenged, the driver admitted that he had falsely filled in the form, and filled it in again correctly. In the police’s view, it was a basic attempt to pervert the course of justice, and the driver had acted intentionally to get someone else to take the blame.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he was displaying illegal number plates on his Hackney Carriage vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that it was a genuine mistake, and he was not aware that he had been using a ghost plate until the police came and took it from him. His son had bought it as a gift several years ago as it had 3D lettering that looked better, and he had been unknowingly driving with it since then. The plate had been registered with the DVLA and had not been noticed on several MOTs. He provided the Sub Committee with a receipt for the plates which described them as ‘UK standard’.
The driver added that he did not know what ghost plates were until the police seized them from him. He suggested that if he had really wanted to avoid being caught committing an offence, he would not have put his hackney plate right next to the ghost plate on the rear of his vehicle. The police’s statement had made clear that they would not have been able to trace him if not for the hackney plate.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that when the speed limit changed from 40mph to 30mph on Manor Way, advice letters were sent out to drivers who were caught breaking the new limit. Suspicions were raised when this number plate didn’t read, and the police were only able to identify the vehicle from the taxi plate next to it. Possession of the plates was illegal, which was why the driver had received a fixed penalty notice and paid a fine.
The witness added that the ghost plate was not actually UK standard as it didn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it, but acknowledged that this was not obvious. He was surprised that this was not noticed during several MOTs but could not speak for the garage that had passed it. In his experience, ghost plates were only fitted to vehicles so they could avoid cameras, and they had been on the vehicle for some time. It was not possible to say for sure whether the vehicle had gotten away with any other offences in that time.
The driver’s representative added that the plates would have seemed legal to the untrained eye and had since been replaced with legal ones. He emphasised that the driver had been a taxi driver of good standing for nearly twenty years, and had made a genuine mistake and not intended to deceive anyone.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a motoring offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he had made a mistake by nominating the wrong driver. He got confused about the date that it happened because he and his wife shared another car, and he wrongly nominated her as the driver on that day. His wife had also not noticed that it was the wrong car when she was notified of the offence.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the car they shared was a Vauxhall Corsa while his taxi was a Mercedes E-Class. Both of them were insured to drive the Corsa while only he was allowed to drive the Mercedes.
The driver noted that there was a mistake in the police’s statement, which stated that the offence occurred on a Sunday when actually it was on a Thursday. The witness, representing South Wales Police, acknowledged the error in the statement but clarified that the NIP form displayed the correct date, in addition to clearly stating the make, model and number plate of the vehicle.
The witness noted that the number plates of the two cars in question were not particularly similar. He added that their records showed he was carrying a fare at the time, and as the offence involved going through a red light at speed it would go to court.
The driver added that he was disappointed in himself for not looking at the form properly and making a mistake. He had driven taxis for more than ten years and had never previously had a complaint.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he was disqualified from driving in November 2024 for 56 days.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that on the day in question he was coming back to Cardiff from Bristol. He was too slow to decelerate when he came off the A48 and the speed limit changed, and there was a police vehicle behind him which pulled him over for speeding. It was the first time this had happened in 16 years of driving, and he had apologised and accepted his punishment.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the suspension had expired in mid-January and he was back driving now. Having been disqualified in November, he had declared his offence to the council in December and handed in his plates then.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had already been punished, having received a fine and a suspension, and asked that he be given a second chance.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90).
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that some time ago he had been trying to sell a car and allowed a potential buyer to take it for a test drive. Upon being notified that the car had been caught going 29mph in a 20mph zone, he provided the driver’s details but the police had been unable to find them. The driver suspected that the individual may have had a licence from another country or provided a fake name. He had been unable to track down the driver and in the end felt he had no choice but to accept the points and declare this to the council.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the vehicle in question had not been his taxi. He allowed a friend of a friend to take the car out on their own without checking their licence, which he accepted was a mistake. His friend had failed to provide the individual’s proper details and as a result they were no longer friends.
The driver added that taxi driving was his only source of income and he needed to support his children. If he had known any of this would happen then he would never have let someone else drive his car.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 21 days.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence for breaching the requirements as to control of the vehicle including a mobile phone offence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points and a fine for using a mobile phone while driving. His phone screen had lit up in the passenger seat and a police officer walking by spotted it, and he ended up having to go to court. He had tried to explain that the phone screen had come on automatically but the police claimed it was in his hand.
The driver believed he was innocent and disputed the police’s version of events but had accepted the judge’s verdict. He clarified that he had been driving his wife’s car rather than his taxi. He apologised for not notifying the council of the offence as soon as it had happened, having been under the impression that it only had to be reported upon renewal.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant failed to declare on his application form that he had previously been licensed by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and that his licence with that authority had been revoked in May 2024 on the grounds of public safety.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that when he was licensed in Merthyr he wasn’t aware that they did not allow him to drive in Cardiff. He had now done the Cardiff knowledge test and wanted to get licensed so he could drive a taxi in the city.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that Merthyr council had revoked his licence after a complaint from a passenger who said he locked her in the taxi. He disputed that he had locked her in and suggested that the passenger had refused to pay the fare, leading to an altercation.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been kicked out of his home when he was 16 and had subsequently gotten into trouble. He was convicted of wounding, affray and assault after several fights, with the last conviction coming in 2002, relating to an incident in 1999. When the last case went to court, he was sentenced to 240 hours of community service, and since then he had maintained a clean record. He now had a daughter and a house and felt he had shown he was a good man.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had worked as an HGV driver before sustaining an injury in a car accident which left him in a wheelchair for several years. Since then he had worked to get his fitness back and was confident driving again. The car accident had led to a disorder which caused his hands to twitch but his doctor was happy for him to drive. The Licensing Officer added that the applicant had provided a medical certificate confirming this.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that he attempted to charge a customer an extra amount for paying by debit card and was attempting to charge a fixed fee and not utilise the calibrated meter in the vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had taken card payments long before it was mandatory to offer them, and often picked up passengers near the train station who did not have cash on them. On the night in question, at about 1am he saw the witness waiting for a taxi and asked him if he needed to pay by card, which he did. The passenger asked how much it would be to go to Penylan, which he said would cost about £10.
The driver added that he had accidentally pressed the £1 extra button on SumUp while waiting to leave the rank but did not intend to charge this. He was aware of the rules against charging more than was on the meter, even though he had to pay fees on card payments. The driver suggested that during the journey, the passenger was upset and rude. After arriving at the destination, they paid the £9.30 fare listed on the meter by card and then took pictures of the inside and outside of the car. The passenger was not charged anything extra, which the receipt showed.
The driver’s representative added that there had been no previous complaints against the driver, and he had been taking card payments for six years now without ever being accused of trying to charge more than what was on the meter.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver emphasised that he knew it was not legal to charge a transaction fee for card payments, and stressed that he had added the £1 fee by mistake at the start of the journey and then not tried to charge it at the end. He also emphasised that he had not asked for a fixed fee, but had just said that a trip to Penylan would likely be around that amount, and then put the meter on as requested.
The witness recalled that he had hailed a taxi at the bottom of St Mary’s Street on a Friday night, which was always busy. He found a taxi which was willing to take card, as he didn’t have cash and this was before a card reader became a requirement. He asked the driver if he could go to Penylan and the driver said ‘£10’. The witness said ‘we’ll see what the meter says’, because he was aware of the requirements for journeys within the city boundaries. The driver then said there would be a £1 fee, which he disputed.
The witness insisted that he had not been rude or angry. At the end of the journey, as he exited the vehicle he took a photo of the numberplate, because he didn’t think it was right that the driver had tried to charge him a fixed fare within the city boundaries.
Members asked what the fee was at the end of the journey. The witness responded that he paid £9.30 and suggested that the photo he took of the meter showed a £9.30 total with a £1 fee having been added to it. The driver clarified that the £1 fee had not been added to the fare, as he had to press an extra button to add this on before taking payment, but did not do this because he had pressed the £1 button accidentally.
The driver added that he had never been accused of overcharging before, and he always used the meter even when he went outside of the boundaries to places like Penarth.
The driver’s representative suggested that the situation may have stemmed from a misunderstanding when the driver advised that the likely cost to go to Penylan would be around £10, which the passenger interpreted as a fixed fare.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained the offences and acknowledged complacency on his part, particularly regarding two of his speeding offences which had occurred in the same week. At the time he was going through a personal crisis with his partner being ill in hospital, and he failed to notice a recent change in speed limit in an area from 40mph to 30mph.
Members asked why the driver had only declared 6 penalty points when renewing his licence when he actually had 9. The driver explained that the second offence in that week, in June 2023, was not actually penalised until the following February, which he still did not understand. He had paid the fine initially but then had it reimbursed in December 2023, so he assumed it had been a mistake and they had charged him twice for the same offence. In January 2024 he was summoned to court and told that he hadn’t paid the fine. He co-operated in every way he could and accepted his punishment for speeding, which ended up being a larger fine than the original one. At the time he renewed his application, he believed there were only 6 points on his licence.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the two offences in the same week were committed on Manor Way. The driver added that he drove past there almost every day because he lived nearby. He was not making excuses but felt there were some mitigating circumstances on his mind when he failed to notice the change to a 30mph road, and he did not deny that he was speeding.
Members noted that with 9 points now on his licence, he would need to be very careful in order to keep driving at all. The driver agreed and stressed that he was very aware of this. Taxi driving was very important to him because it allowed him to work flexibly and care for his wife. He reiterated that the offences had been a temporary lapse of judgement which he had owned up to.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had a conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had made a big mistake six years ago, while he was new in the country and had been drinking. He had sexually assaulted a woman who reported him to the police, and he had accepted a caution for this and apologised.
Members asked why he had not declared this on his application form. The driver explained that he didn’t know that he needed to at the time, having only been in the UK for a year and only having had limited English skills then. At the police station he had come under the impression that accepting the caution and apologising would be the end of the matter. He didn’t know it would show up on his application but he needed a job and didn’t want to be turned down. He felt very ashamed, both for what he did and for not declaring it.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been issued with a caution by South Wales Police which he did not declare on his renewal application.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received a caution for battery in 2022 after an incident between him and his wife. He pushed her and she called the police, and he was arrested and released with a caution. When it came to renew his licence, he misunderstood the question and thought it only referred to convictions, not cautions.
Members asked why he had not declared the caution immediately in 2022, let alone failing to do so in 2024 upon renewal. The driver responded that he didn’t realise it was something he had to declare as he had been released straight away. He had understood it as a warning rather than something on his permanent record, and apologised for this.
Members suggested that having been a taxi driver since 2008, he would have renewed his licence several times before, and should have been aware of the need to inform the licensing authority as soon as possible if he committed any sort of offence. The driver apologised and reiterated that he was under the impression that a caution was more like a warning.
The driver added that in 16 years in the trade he had never had any incidents of this or any other nature. The offence was something in his private life which he and his wife had now resolved.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days, and the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
This case was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED: that
1) the Special Procedures functions which are required by law to be discharged by the statutory Licensing Committee, within its approved Terms of Reference, and the proposed arrangements in this regard, as set out in paragraph 10 of the report be noted;
2) the delegation to the Shared Regulatory Services Joint Committee of all Executive functions under the following Parts of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and regulations made thereunder be approved:
(i) Part 3 Chapter 1, Smoke free premises, places and vehicles;
(ii) Part 4, Special Procedures; and
(iii) Part 5, Intimate piercing on children;
3) It be noted and agreed that the Shared Regulatory Services Joint Committee will be responsible for granting all authorisations and delegations required by the Head of the Shared Regulatory Service and SRS officers in order to effectively discharge the delegated functions;
4) the amendment of the SRS Joint Working Agreement to reflect the arrangements approved under recommendations 1, 2 and 3 above be approved; and
5) the Director of Governance & Legal Services be authorised, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet member, to agree the terms and execute the required Deed of Variation to the Joint Working Agreement.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1) Application 1
This item was deferred to a later meeting.
(2) Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that information had been received stating that he allegedly committed four speeding offences, but when contacted by police regarding these offences, returned documents with details stating that other drivers committed these offences. It was also alleged that when questioned by Licensing Officers, the driver stated that someone in his household had returned the documents. The driver had also disclosed a driving offence which was not on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he accepted responsibility for the speeding offences as he was the only person who drove his taxi, but he believed that someone else had filled out the inaccurate forms. He had had some family problems in the last few years and was worried that someone might have filled in the forms maliciously to get him in trouble.
The driver’s representative reiterated that the driver accepted responsibility for the speeding offences, and added that he would have filled in the paperwork accurately and responsibly had he received it. He had been driving a taxi in Cardiff for nearly twenty years with a very good record. He hoped that the Sub Committee would take into account that taxi driving was his sole source of income and he needed to support his family.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver confirmed that he did not know any of the names provided in the paperwork, and did not think the forms were in his handwriting.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that in his view, the only reason the forms would have been filled in falsely would have been to help the driver avoid a penalty for speeding. He did not accept the explanation that they had been filled out maliciously by someone else, as they had resulted in the driver getting away with several speeding offences until he was eventually caught out.
Members queried the supporting documentation and heard that the driver had initially provided a copy of an informal rental agreement with another individual for temporary use of the vehicle. South Wales Police had not been able to track down this person and confirm that they either existed or had the required licence and insurance to drive a taxi. The witness suggested that having initially been caught speeding, the driver had claimed someone else was driving, only to realise that this would be a breach of the insurance and then admit it was him.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(3) Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that he refused to take an assistance dog, claiming he had a medical condition.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that on the day in question he was suffering from bad hay fever which was making him itch and sneeze. He accepted the job, but when he saw it was a dog he called Dragon Taxis and apologised for not being able to take the passenger. The operator explained that he wasn’t allowed to refuse a guide dog but he had to insist because it was a medical issue. He was very sorry to have inconvenienced the passenger, and would not do it again.
The driver’s daughter added that he had a history of hay fever and medical records to support that. It could be triggered around pets and it was hard to drive when he was sneezing and coughing. He felt it was better to arrange an alternative, but did not intend to offend or dismiss the customer in any way. He had never had another complaint and had already been suspended by Dragon Taxis for a month for this incident.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver said that he was unaware that he could apply for a medical exemption certificate which would allow him to not take assistance animals. Rather than a specific allergy to dogs, it was hay fever which could sometimes be exacerbated by them. He understood that without an exemption certificate, he was legally required to take them.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that she booked a taxi from Leckwith to Barry at about 8:15pm. She could see on the Dragon app that the driver who had accepted the job was at the traffic lights nearby, so she went out to wait for him, only to see him do a U-turn and park on the opposite side of the road. It was dark so she didn’t approach the car. She then got a call from Dragon asking whether it was a guide dog, which she confirmed.
The witness emphasised that the driver should have come over and spoken to her in person if he was unable to take her and her dog. The operator had not explained why the driver was not willing to take the dog. She found it humiliating and exhausting to have to fight for equality to access a taxi.
The Sub Committee listened to recordings of the two calls in question provided by Dragon Taxis, one with the passenger and one with the driver.
The driver apologised to the witness for his mistake, which he assured her would never happen again. He had never turned down taking a dog before and understood that it was required as part of his licence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning, and be required to complete the relevant SQA course within twelve weeks.
(4) Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that he had 11 points and £300 in fines on his driving licence. This was in respect of 3 speeding offences, 2 other speeding offences where he was fined £290 and £250, and a further speeding offence for which he attended a speed awareness course. None of this information was provided by the driver, as required in Section M of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers Licence Conditions.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had committed six speeding offences and made a mistake when filling out the necessary forms, because he thought he was driving his private car when it was actually his taxi. He went to court for the offences and received 11 points in total, and had sent evidence of his offences to the licensing authority.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that this case had been flagged due to the six offences occurring in a short space of time, and during the investigation it was discovered that the driver had nominated two different people who were found not to be insured on the taxi. He was sceptical of the suggestion that the driver could have been confused about which car was involved, as each NIP form displayed the make, model and registration in bold capital letters on the front page. The witness suggested that the driver had only now decided to tell the truth having gone to court for the six offences, where he had agreed a deal to take 11 points and be able to continue driving.
The driver responded that his confusion over the vehicle was due to him being new to driving the taxi at the time, and the two cars having similar numberplates. He had also suffered a number of family tragedies around that time which would have contributed to his stressful situation. Members queried whether a picture of the vehicle would have been provided in the letter, which the Legal Officer clarified was not automatic although it could be requested.
The driver’s representative summarised that the driver had believed the speeding offences had each been committed in his private vehicle rather than his taxi, and had provided the real names of his friends and family who had been using the other car at that time. He now accepted that he was mistaken and had been driving his taxi on each occasion. He had since been punished in court for each offence with fines and penalty points.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(5) Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared a caution for battery.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not feel that battery was an accurate description, as it related to a domestic dispute where he and his wife had both pushed each other. The Legal Officer clarified that the definition of battery included physical contact and not necessarily hitting or wounding. The police had found sufficient evidence to charge him with it, and by accepting the caution, he had admitted the offence.
The driver’s wife added that he was not a violent person at all but they had had a bad day, and he had then misunderstood what he was admitting to when he accepted the caution due to not speaking English as a first language. She hoped that Members would take into account that they had a mortgage and children to support.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver stated that he had been unaware of the duty to inform the licensing authority of any offences, and would do so straight away if anything happened in the future.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for one week, and that the driver receive a written warning.
(6) Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver was alleged to have provided false information to South Wales Police in relation to identifying the driver following a speeding offence notification.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had received a speeding ticket and spoken to a friend about it, who advised him to put down a false name as it was his second offence. This was a stupid mistake which he never should have done. He had learned the hard way and apologised.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that the driver had now accepted that he lied on his form, but previously sent a fraudulent insurance document to back it up. The witness had spoken to the company in question, who made clear that they had not issued the policy. The driver had been able to plead guilty to the original speeding ticket rather than to lying on his form, receiving three points rather than six and a smaller fine. He had knowingly and deliberately lied to the police, and offered no defence other than that he didn’t want a ticket.
The driver’s representative asked that the Sub Committee take into account the circumstances of the case. The driver had accepted that he had lied and given the reasons behind that. There was a scam going round where drivers were misled by individuals promising that they could make offences go away in return for money. The driver had not been honest at the outset but had been now, and he understood the importance of honesty and integrity when serving the public. He categorically assured Members that he would never do anything like this again, and would help with further inquiries into the issue.
The witness suggested that the driver knew from the start what he needed to do to declare his offence properly, having previously received a speeding ticket and complied with the legal requirements, but chose not to this time. He compounded the issue by continuing to knowingly lie, and only told the truth after being caught.
Members asked how many points the driver had on his licence in total, and heard that he had six.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and Pollution Control.
The Sub-Committee considered the application on its individual merits and considered the report, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub-Committee have also considered all submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicants, local residents and local ward councillors during the hearing.
The Sub-Committee noted that South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control initially objected to this application. However, their objections were withdrawn prior to the committee meeting as the applicant agreed their proposed conditions.
The Sub-Committee also noted that the applicant had amended the application prior to the hearing and the operating hours proposed had been reduced.
The Sub-Committee were satisfied that the applicant successfully demonstrated that they are responsible licence holders and the operating schedule and conditions agreed with South Wales Police and Pollution Control would ensure that the granting of the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee therefore resolved to grant the licence with the agreed conditions and amendments made prior to the hearing.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver refused to take a passenger on a pre-booked fare and became abusive and threatening.
The driver was not in attendance at the meeting.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recounted that he had called Veezu and booked a journey that involved several stops on the way back to his home. The driver called him a few minutes before the pickup time and asked where he was, apparently unaware that the pickup time had been arranged for a few minutes later. The driver shouted that he couldn’t wait.
After he got into the vehicle, the driver refused to take him to the agreed stops on the way back home. He asked if he could speak to the dispatcher, in response to which the driver raised his voice again. At one point when the vehicle was stationary, the driver opened the passenger side door and stood in his way while shouting at him. A passer-by had to come over to the car to calm the driver down. The taxi company apologised and sent another driver to complete the journey.
The witness explained that this had been a distressing experience which he found it hard to relive, and he had trouble sleeping afterwards. He wished he had called the police at the time but had been too scared. He felt that the driver should not be driving if he was not capable of doing his job without being aggressive on several occasions, escalating each time, and he was concerned about what could happen to his next customer if there was nobody there to intervene.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks, and that the driver be required to undertake the relevant SQA qualification within three months.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction to consider.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had two convictions, the first for the possession of false identity documents and the second for a money laundering offence. He made no excuse for what had happened in the past and had been working full-time since getting out of prison. He used to be a security driver and had got his SIA licence back this year.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had also applied for licences from Newport and Wolverhampton councils, and both had been refused.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he worked as a delivery driver for Dominos and Amazon in addition to security driving. He wanted to be a taxi driver because his partner was a carer and he wanted to be able to be more flexible so he could look after their child.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant previously held a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence with Cardiff Council that was subsequently revoked.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver emphasised that what happened in 2015 was not reflective of him. He had learned a lesson and not made any mistakes like that since, and he hoped to get a second chance.
Members queried the circumstances of the revocation of his previous licence for fraud, and heard that he had been contracted to do a school run. He had given jobs to his colleagues to complete, and several of the drivers did not complete these jobs, without his knowledge. As the person in charge, he accepted responsibility and felt he had served his punishment over the last eight years, and assured the committee it would never happen again. The Legal Officer clarified that school run operators were not permitted to subcontract.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence be refused.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence following a complaint received alleging that he deliberately refused to take a fare that involved carrying a guide dog.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been on the way to pick up the passenger when his car cut out at some lights. He had been having issues with it for several weeks but hadn’t mentioned it to the operator because he needed the work. He thought he had sent the job back but then realised that he hadn’t. He cancelled the trip but then his car started again, and he drove past the passenger who was stood behind some parked cars, not seeing his dog.
The driver acknowledged that he told Veezu he was no longer in the area, which was not true. He suggested that he panicked because he didn’t want them to stop him driving, and because he needed the money and knew the car would cost a lot to fix. He apologised for the inconvenience caused to the customer, and emphasised that he had picked up hundreds of disabled passengers over the years and never had a complaint. As a result of the incident, he had lost his job with Veezu.
The Sub Committee asked for more details about his car and heard that it had cut out before, but not for a couple of days leading up to the incident. Members noted that the driver log showed he had accepted another job just a few minutes after breaking down, and queried how the car could have been unfit to take a passenger one moment and fine the next.
The witness addressed the Sub Committee, explaining that he had used Veezu to book a trip to the hospital. He was following the job on the mobile app so he knew when the car was approaching, despite being visually impaired. He recalled the car slowing down as it passed him, then it went towards the far end of the estate and the job disappeared on the app. The same driver reappeared on the map shortly after and then disappeared again. A few minutes later, he was able to find another Veezu driver to take him to the hospital, but was late for his appointment.
Members queried whether the original driver communicated with him at any point to explain the situation, and heard that he had not.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the representative from Veezu stressed that he had not taken an opinion in his representation, and had provided driver logs, call logs and GPS tracking which had been agreed as accurate by all parties. All bookings undertaken were logged in their system, and he could not recall any other specific instances of fares being cancelled for similar reasons so close to the pickup time. To his knowledge, there were no previous complaints of this nature against the driver.
Members asked what happened when a Veezu driver declined a job close to the pickup time, and heard that when jobs came up, nearby drivers had a period of flexibility where they could accept, decline or return to base at their discretion. In this case, because the driver had travelled to the booking after accepting it, he was required to call the operator and explain why he had returned to base outside of that time period.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks.
(5)
Application 5
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver allowed his licensed vehicle to be driven by unlicensed drivers on three occasions, each resulting in a speeding offence. It also stated that the driver was the only person insured to drive the vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that on three occasions after being caught speeding, he had asked someone to help him fill out the DVLA documents because his English was not very good, before signing them himself. He found out later that this person had filled in false names, and on the fourth occasion he was caught speeding he filled out the form himself. He had not committed any offences other than these four. He hoped that the committee could take into account that he was supporting his family and had recently lost his father.
The Sub Committee noted that getting someone else to fill out these forms was considered fraud regardless of whether the driver signed them before or after the false information was added. The driver confirmed that he understood it was his responsibility to make sure it was correct when he signed it.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, reiterated that the forms made very clear that they were only to be filled in by the person in question. They noted that on the fourth occasion the driver was able to fill in the form himself, and that he lived within walking distance of a police station, where he could have gone to request assistance if he was having any trouble.
Members asked what would have happened if the driver had declared his speeding offences in the proper way. The witness explained that the first offence would have led to a speed awareness course, before the next three would have been 3 points each. This meant a total of 9 points, which would now be 6 with 3 having expired.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(7)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence following a complaint alleging that he charged and obtained more than the legal fare and failed to provide a proper receipt on request.
The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee, acknowledging that the facts presented in the witness statement were accurate. He felt that the evidence provided showed it was indefensible and apologised to the witness and the committee He highlighted the driver’s personal life, noting that he was a doctor and a family man who had switched professions because his wife was disabled.
The driver’s representative added that he had trained the driver personally under the old BTEC system and felt responsible for not having got the message across about the importance of taxi drivers’ conduct. He suggested that education would be more appropriate than prosecution, and that this could be an opportunity to retrain the driver rather than just revoke his licence. He driver had admitted his mistake and acknowledged his guilt, and was willing to do the new SQA qualification which had more of a focus on mobility and disability issues.
The driver echoed his representative’s statement and apologised to the witness.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness thanked the driver for his apology. He added that earlier on the day in question, he had had similar issues with another taxi, which was why he did not challenge the fare in this case even though he knew he had been overcharged. He hadn’t used a taxi since this incident and it would take a long time before he felt comfortable using one again, which had a debilitating impact on his independence.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 3 weeks.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that he displayed conduct unbefitting of a licensed driver.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had taken a booking by the supermarket in St Mellons and waited there for the customer. Two people arrived, an old woman and a younger woman with her. He thought he only had one customer, and that the younger woman was helping her to the car. A minute or so into the journey the passenger said ‘where is my daughter?’, so he stopped at a petrol station to turn around. The passenger suddenly asked where her daughter was again and this confused the driver, so he called his operator. The passenger became panicked and angry and so he asked his operator if he could drop her back at the original spot and leave.
The driver refuted the suggestion in the witness’ statement that he had stopped to fill up his car, as well as the suggestion that he had spoken in an aggressive manner.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had experience working with older people who required extra assistance. He always got out of his car to help them get in, but in this case she was already being assisted.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that she and her mother were at the garden centre when she booked a taxi home for two people and received a text confirming this. The driver was not paying attention as they came up to the vehicle so she helped her mother into the car. She asked the driver to open the boot, at which point he shut the door and drove off, so she rang the operator and spoke to them. It took about 15 minutes for the taxi to return with her mother inside, who was quite shaken. The driver got out and came over, not to help her out but to tell her very loudly to get out of his vehicle, in what she felt was an aggressive way. Eventually another driver came along and they went home.
Regarding the driver’s statement that he had spoken to the passenger, the witness explained that her mother was profoundly deaf and couldn’t have conversations with people unless they were very close and looking directly at her. The booking had been clearly made for two people and her mother had told him to return her immediately. She also disputed the driver’s suggestion that her mother had been angry and aggressive, noting that she was 96 years old and 4’9”.
Members asked if there was any other conversation between the witness and the driver. She explained that she had just said ‘hello’ initially and then asked if he could open the boot.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for two weeks.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver smoked a cigarette whilst in his licensed vehicle and proceeded to drive and act in a manner not considered fit and proper.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been having a cigarette outside his vehicle while waiting for the customer to arrive. When the passenger got in, he smelt smoke and told him that he had a lung condition. The driver acknowledged his mistake and in hindsight should have moved further away from the vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that the driver had been smoking inside the vehicle, and that he had asked if the passenger minded if he continued. He challenged the driver on this as he knew it was illegal, and the driver threw it out of the window. The witness emphasised that he had weak lungs and was coughing throughout the journey, but needed to get home and kept quiet so the driver did not terminate the trip.
The driver turned up the music very loud, which the witness felt was intended to intimidate him, and exceeded the speed limit during the journey. When asked about his badges, he said he didn’t use them, which made the witness suspect that he was not driving legally.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver explained that he took his badges out of his car overnight because it had been broken into before. He had his badge on him in this instance but it might not have been in the window. He understood the requirements about displaying the badge.
The driver’s representative asked about an altercation with a group of people in another vehicle mentioned in the driver’s statement. The witness explained that while they were stopped at a red light, the passenger side window was wound down to get rid of the smell of smoke, and some young men nearby heard them arguing about it. He didn’t feel this was relevant or indicative of the whole journey so didn’t he include it in his own statement.
The driver’s representative acknowledged that he understood why the witness was upset at smelling smoke, and the driver would move further away from the vehicle in the future. He asked that Members show leniency in this instance, suggesting that the situation had been escalated by the witness. The driver had been licensed to drive taxis for 13 years and had never had a complaint of this nature before.
The witness disputed the suggestion that the driver had only been smoking outside of his vehicle, but emphasised that his attitude was the main reason for his complaint.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver declared he had 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the three offences, which he had incurred in 2022, 2023 and 2024 respectively. He accumulated heavy mileage each year, normally 40,000-50,000 miles, and his priority was customer safety and excellent customer service. He understood there was no excuse for exceeding the speed limit but had appealed one of these convictions as a 30mph sign was covered by trees, but this had been unsuccessful.
He assured Members that he was a safe driver who went above and beyond for his passengers. He had been a licensed taxi driver for nearly seven years now and had received no complaints in that time. It was his main source of income, and he would endeavour not to put himself or the licensing authority in this situation again.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that none of the offences had occurred while he had passengers in the vehicle.
Members discussed the delay between the last SP30 conviction in February and the driver notifying the authority in August, noting that he was obligated under the conditions of his licence to inform them of any offence as soon as it occurred. The driver responded that he had declared it upon renewing his licence, and apologised for failing to do so sooner.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver declared he had three SP30 motoring convictions and was pending a further two.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the convictions. He had worked as a taxi driver for many years and loved the job and being a part of the community. He supported his family on his single income and worked long hours to do so. He understood the responsibilities of being a taxi driver and the challenges of the job.
The driver’s representative updated Members on the status of the two pending convictions. The driver had received three points for one of them, meaning he now had twelve in total, and he had been ordered to take a speed awareness course for the other offence.
The Sub Committee queried whether he had received any kind of ban. The driver responded that he had paid the fines and had not had any notification of a ban, so he was still driving. He had been informed of the last set of points about three weeks ago and had a speed awareness course booked in October.
The Chair suggested that it was unusual to be offered a speed awareness course when a driver already had nine points, and noted that there was no evidence of whether he had been suspended or not. It was suggested that the driver be suspended until the licensing authority received evidence that the last two offences had been settled and the DVLA had not suspended him.
It was suggested that the matter be deferred to the next Sub Committee on 6th November. The driver’s representative noted that a month was a long time to wait when taxi driving was his main source of income. It was instead agreed that the driver would present the evidence to the licensing authority as soon as possible, while the authority would also check with the DVLA in the meantime.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended until the driver presents evidence to the licensing authority that the two recent convictions have been settled with no driving ban.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver declared he had two SP30 motoring convictions and one SP50 motoring conviction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t intend to make excuses, but did feel he was a fit and proper person to safely drive a taxi. Two of his speeding offences happened in the same place on Manor Way, after the speed limit there was reduced from 40mph to 30mph. On both occasions he was travelling to the hospital to visit his mother without passengers in the vehicle and was caught going at 36mph.
He admitted that this was wrong and had taken his punishment. He had taken this experience on board and was now an even more careful driver than before. He did a lot for his passengers and took public safety very seriously. He had a character reference from a funeral director whose clients he regularly drove around, and felt he was a good representative of the city of Cardiff.
Members asked why it took several months to inform the licensing authority of these convictions. The driver responded that he was aware of the obligation to notify the council, but the court process had finished in April and he had sent off his licence. After it came back, he notified the authority after a week or two, which he acknowledged he should have done sooner.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver declared he was disqualified from driving and had received a ban from the DVLA.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had a taxi licence since 2008 and as of the start of 2024 had not had any points on his licence. He had a drink and a meal with some friends one evening and gave one of them a lift home, not realising he was over the limit, and was pulled over. He was banned from driving for 15 months, which was reduced to 12 upon doing a course.
Before this ban had expired, he drove his car in an emergency, needing to pick up stock for the shop he ran, and was pulled over by the police for driving while disqualified. For this, he was given a nine month ban, fined and required to do community service.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that it was never safe to drink alcohol before driving, and this had been a huge mistake. He understood the severity of his crime and the impact it had on people. Driving while disqualified had also been a terrible mistake and he had faced the consequences of this.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received which stated that he became threatening and angry when challenged in respect of the metered fare being charged, and failed to provide his driver identification when requested.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was at the taxi rank by the castle when a passenger approached him and asked to be taken home. He asked if she had a preferred route and proceeded with the journey, and as they were about to go over the Fairoak roundabout she queried the reading on the meter. She said he was ripping her off but he explained it was the normal meter price and she could take it up with the council if she wanted.
The passenger asked him to stop so she could get out and refused to pay the fare. He saw another cab coming and waved him down to explain the situation. The passenger asked for his ID and he said she could take a picture of his plate number. He recorded a video on his phone but had lost it while backing up his device recently.
Members queried why he had refused to show identification to the passenger when she requested it. The driver suggested that she had been aggressive to him, and he didn’t want to leave his seat. He had reached behind instead to get his papers from the back seat because this included the meter certificate which showed it was functioning correctly.
The Sub Committee explored the discrepancy between the fare requested and what the witness normally expected to pay. The driver didn’t know why exactly it was higher than normal, as every meter was the same. He recalled that when she got out of the cab, he said she could just give him what she had, not necessarily the whole fare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness reiterated the details in her statement, a number of which contradicted the driver’s account. She suggested that the driver had not asked her about her preferred route, but she had asked to avoid Newport Road because it often took longer. As they stopped at the lights on Lake Road East, she noticed that the fare was higher than usual. She got taxis home a lot, frequently after midnight, and the fare was normally around £16. When she challenged this, the driver said that the council set the rates but clearly didn’t want to talk about it any further.
She added that when the driver reached into the back of the car she thought he was grabbing at her, which was distressing. He got out the meter certificate but she realised the meter was still running and by then had reached £21.70. She said she wouldn’t pay anything until he provided his name and badge number so she could make a complaint. She tried to get out of the vehicle to take a picture of the plate number but he locked the doors, and at one point claimed he didn’t know his registration number.
The driver then flagged down another taxi driver who spoke to both of them. The second driver agreed that the fare was higher than expected and suggested that she pay it before taking it up with the council. The driver had been aggressive and rude throughout, and she felt scared and unsafe.
Members discussed the witness’ account and asked whether she accepted the explanation that the doors locking could have been an automatic feature. She explained that she asked the driver to unlock the door but he didn’t. It was only when the second driver came back that the door was unlocked.
In response to questions from the driver’s representative, the witness stated that she couldn’t recall the starting amount on the meter when she got in the taxi. It was only when they got to the lake that she realised the fare was higher than normal. The Licensing Officer added that the council had retrospectively calculated a reasonable fare for the trip at the night-time rate to be about £17, though it might have been higher due to the bank holiday.
The driver’s representative asked whether the witness accepted that meters were checked by authorised council officials and could not be tampered with by the drivers. The witness did not agree, and suspected that it was either set to a higher rate or was already running when she got into the vehicle.
The driver’s representative suggested that the incident could be seen as a misunderstanding. The driver was just doing his job in getting her home, starting and stopping the meter accordingly, and it was not right that he was challenged about what he was required to charge. The driver then flagged down a third party to help defuse the situation.
The witness acknowledged the points made but still felt upset about the experience, and had not used a hackney carriage since. She emphasised that the driver’s conduct was unacceptable, since he had been aggressive and nasty and refused to provide his licence number.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received which stated that he displayed aggressive and intimidating behaviour by shouting and gesturing towards a cyclist using the regular bus lane.
The driver was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had been cycling on Newport Road, coming from Roath towards Bute Park. There was a cycleway near the prison but he didn’t join it, choosing instead to use the bus lane which he was entitled to do. He stopped at a red light, and as he pulled away again a taxi started honking at him. The driver overtook him close by and shouted and gestured for him to move over. This was very upsetting and intimidating. It had happened before with other drivers, some of whom had been physically aggressive towards him.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the witness.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared relevant convictions on his DBS certificate as part of the application to renew his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been driving along the bus lane on Westgate Street last November. A bus inspector flagged him down and came over, and they had an altercation which led to the driver being accused of racism. This went to court and he was convicted and fined. He couldn’t afford to appeal and paid the fine in instalments.
He added that he had driven taxis for more than 15 years and never had a complaint. It was an unfortunate incident but he had taken it on the chin and hoped to move on. He relied on his job to pay the rent and support his family, and would be willing to do the relevant BTEC course if it would help.
Members queried what exactly he was alleged to have said. The driver explained that it was allegedly a racial slur, but he disputed saying this. He acknowledged that he shouldn’t have gotten angry, and anything similar were to happen again he would just ignore it and go to the next job.
The driver’s representative reiterated that he had driven taxis for more than 15 years and had a good record with no recent issues. He had disputed the complainant’s version of events but couldn’t afford to challenge the conviction so had to accept the fine and everything that came with it. Outside of work, he was of good character and worked with charities and food banks. Taxi driving was his sole source of income, and it was of vital importance that he be able to keep his licence. He had also indicated his willingness to complete the relevant qualification in order to shore up his knowledge and ability.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for two weeks, and that the driver be required to complete the BTEC Certificate In Taxi & Private Hire Driver (Level 2) within three months.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had been convicted of offences resulting in him being disqualified from driving.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in 2021 he had taken a job on Cyncoed Road whilst driving for Uber. While driving on Newport Road, he saw a cyclist in the bus lane and passed him when the gap was sufficient. The traffic slowed down and the lane split into two, with his lane diverted slightly towards the middle of the road. The cyclist came up behind him, thinking that the taxi had cut him off, and kicked the car twice, swore at the driver and broke the mirror.
The driver added that he wanted to prosecute the cyclist for this damage so he pulled into the left on Colchester Avenue to stop him leaving the scene. As his vehicle stopped, the cyclist went into the front wing and hit his shoulder on the door. The ambulance and police were called, and the cyclist went to hospital while the driver was arrested. He was released with no charge that day but learned about a year later that criminal proceedings were underway, which led to him being disqualified from driving for two years.
He emphasised that he had not intended to do the cyclist any harm, only move across to stop him running off as he knew he wouldn’t have any registration. It was the worst mistake he had ever made, and he had lost years of earnings and a mortgage as a result.
He added that he had been a taxi driver for 34 years, and had done school runs for 17 of those. He had an excellent record and always went above and beyond for his passengers, and felt he was a good ambassador for the city of Cardiff. He missed doing the job a lot, as it was not only his source of income but also his social life. He didn’t feel he would be able to work anywhere else, and hoped he would be allowed to keep his badges.
Members asked what he would do differently if an incident like this were to happen again. The driver accepted that his reaction had made him the culprit, and in the future he would just ignore it and carry on with the next job. He stressed that what happened that day was out of character for him.
Members queried the details of the incident, noting that a news article about it differed in some respects. The driver maintained that this was an inaccurate report that got key details wrong.
Members asked how he felt about sharing the road with cyclists in general. The driver emphasised that he took his responsibilities both as a taxi driver and under the Highway Code very seriously, and he understood how dangerous a car could be when used improperly. He acknowledged that by not pulling over and calming down he had made a very serious error, but it would never happen again.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire licence be suspended until such a time that the driver produces a certificate of the SQA ‘Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver’ qualification.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction to consider.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged he had several convictions from his younger days, but he had come a long way since then and turned his life around, and did not pose any danger to the public.
Members noted that the guidance advised not issuing the licence in a case like this unless there were exceptional circumstances, and asked what these might be. The driver explained that his last conviction was seven years ago, and since then he had a clean record. He had been working consistently since then and had become a real part of the community who was always helping others out.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had recently received an endorsement on his licence due to defective tyres. He had bought a car which passed its MOT, and while driving it back to Cardiff was stopped for a bald tyre. He had received three points and a fine for this.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the public be excluding from the meeting during consideration of the following item accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) as the item contains exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 18 of Parts 4 and 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).
‘Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.’
An application for the review of a Premises Licence was received from South Wales Police in respect of Cardiff Bay Convenience Store, Bute Street.
The Sub Committee heard representations from South Wales Police, the licence holder and interested others.
Decision
The Sub Committee considered the Premises Licence Review in respect of Bay View Convenience Store on its individual merits and considered all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and licence holder during the hearing in its determination of the matter.
The Sub Committee felt that revocation of the Premises Licence was not proportionate to promoting the licensing objectives. However, they felt that a suspension of three months would be suitable considering the seriousness of the breaches that occurred.
Furthermore, the Sub Committee felt that the conditions that the licence holder had offered should be applied to the licence, apart from the condition relating to CCTV which they felt was not sufficient. The Sub Committee therefore proposed that the CCTV condition offered should be amended so that footage was retained for a period of no less than 31 days and the timestamp of the date and time of the CCTV be required to be accurate.
The Sub Committee felt that this suspension and these conditions were appropriate for promoting the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating he refused to take a journey from Cardiff train station to Penarth after allegedly saying he was available for hire.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that the driver in attendance at the meeting was not the one he had dealt with and submitted a complaint about.
RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating that he refused to take a passenger using the meter and requested £30 for a journey within the Cardiff boundary.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that the complaint related to an alleged incident on 3rd February 2024 which was the evening of the Wales v Scotland International rugby match. At 8.55 pm on the evening of 3rd February 2024 and the time of the alleged incident St Mary’s Street would have been very busy. The driver was not working but was present as he had pre-arranged to pick up his nephew as he knew he would have been struggling to get out the city after the rugby international match. There was evidence from the nephew that he had made arrangements with the driver to collect him and take him home.
He added that the driver did not speak to the witness and had no reason to speak to him as he was there only to take his nephew home. Further, if the driver had been working taking a fare to Pentwyn would have cost more than a typical Saturday night due to the level of congestion in the city. It was noted that the journey to Roath with his nephew took 45 minutes and Pentwyn would have taken double that time.
He suggested that perhaps the witness was confused as he had asked the driver five times how much it would cost to take him to Pentwyn. He also referred to the photograph submitted by the witness. He stated that there was no illuminated sign in the middle of the roof of the car with the word Taxi written on it as he was not working but waiting for his nephew.
The driver’s representative queried why the driver would refuse a fare if he was working because he would be paid more if journey took longer due the congestion in the city centre. He also added that the driver was not someone who has caused the council problems, always used the taxi meter and provided the correct questions when asked.
Summarising he said that the balance of probabilities would suggest that the incident did not happen. There were two statements to support the driver – his and his nephew’s, and the statement that the complainant had to repeat his request five times to the drive, and also the witness was not present. He suggested that the driver was a fit and proper person and that the allegation was not substantiated.
RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he took payment of £25 from a member of the public in a private hire vehicle without the fare being booked in advance, and then offered and took payment for a second un-booked fare with the same member of the public the following day.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the timeline in the case was crucial and referred to the fact that the allegation dated back to July 2023. The witness had stated he made a booking with the taxi company but the company had a record of him cancelling the booking at 12.03 am. The driver was not working that night which had been confirmed by the taxi company. The witness had suggested he had spoken to the driver and the driver had asked for confirmation that the name matched the booking.
The driver’s representative said that the original booking was cancelled and had not been received by the driver as it had been allocated to another driver – the implication being that it was the original driver who had the name and details from the taxi company.
The driver’s representative stated that the witness had been taken to their home address, and the driver had to wait a significant period before the witness was driven to his destination. The witness had been pleased with the charge of £25 and commended, who he believed was, the driver on the level of service provided.
However, a few hours later at 3.00 am the witness claimed to have seen the same person. He had gone from commending someone on a £25 fare to an argument around a £6.50 fare. The driver’s representative noted that this did not make sense. According to the witness statement he stated the fare was normally cost £6 to return home again and then claims he was told to exit the vehicle as he does not have the full fare.
The driver’s representative stated that the witness did not describe the driver, car, colour, make or registration details. He also did not contact the taxi company until 10 to 14 days after the alleged incident. He was then advised to contact the Council which was 6 months later in 2024.
He said that the driver was contacted for the first time eight months after the original allegation in July 2023 and asked whether he recalled something happening. It was noted that the driver would have made between 8,000 to 10,000 taxi journeys during that time and was adamant that he did not pick the witness up. The witness also referred to a BACS payment but the driver had never taken a BACS payment.
Responding to questions the driver’s representative clarified the booking process. He explained that when booking on the app or at the taxi base the passenger was asked for their name, pick up point and destination. The driver would then receive confirmation on an app and had the option of accepting or rejecting the booking. If they accept the fare, they would receive the pick-up and destination details and the name of person who had made the booking. Only the driver who accepted the booking would be able to view the booking. If the passenger had cancelled the booking what would be logged on system was that the booking was cancelled and the driver would no longer have access to that journey but it would remain on the company system.
To summarise, the driver’s representative stated that the driver disputed the complaint in two respects. Firstly, it was not him and secondly, in relation to the allegation itself it was not substantiated on its own merits as £25 was accepted for the first fare and then £6.50 was claimed by the witness to be an overcharge for the return journey. It was also noted that the witness was not present to clarify issues.
RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken.
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he declared he had a conviction for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.
The Sub Committee heard the case in the absence of the driver. The driver was contacted during the meeting by telephone to confirm his attendance. However, no response was received. The application had been scheduled to be heard at 11.30 am. To allow time for the driver to arrive the Sub Committee waited until 11.34 am before commencing the hearing.
The Sub Committee noted the circumstances and the driver’s conviction for the possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. Additional information had also been provided by the police. The driver had no previous complaints and had been driving since 2007, however the Sub Committee were mindful of the guidance on determining the suitability of applicants and licensees in the Hackney and Private Hire Trades and that a licence should not be granted unless at least 7 years had elapsed since the completion of any sentence.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be revoked as of 7.08.24
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had 6 penalty points on his licence, arising from two offences committed on 29th July 2022 for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks and driving otherwise than in accordance with a license. The applicant failed to declare these endorsements on his application for a grant of a licence and ticked the ‘No’ box when answering the question on the application form.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was a fit and proper person. He said his conviction had been a mistake. He had been living abroad and had been in possession of a driving licence since 2008. When he returned to the UK in July 2022 he had not known that his driving licence was not valid until he had been stopped by the police. When he contacted the DVLA he said they did not have an explanation for him as to why his licence was not valid.
When the driver attended court for the driving conviction, he informed the Sub Committee that he had been told he could drive with his international driving licence but could take his driving test again. He did so and passed within one month. He said he paid for insurance for the vehicle but it was not accepted as his driving licence was showing as not valid. The insurance company emailed him to say the payment was rejected and he confirmed he had not received an insurance policy document. The driver said he had held a full driving licence for the last 2 years and had not accumulated any points during those 2 years.
Responding to questions the driver informed the Sub Committee that he had not declared the points on his application form as he had not understood what the term ‘endorsement’ meant. He confirmed he now knew what the term meant.
He also confirmed that when he held his first UK driving licence he had been in possession of a card and photo and that he was aware it was valid from 2008 to 2018. He informed the Sub Committee that he had changed his address and was going to change his licence but was convicted before he had managed to do this. The driver confirmed he was aware of the seriousness of the offence as the police had taken his car and he had to obtain an insurance document to release it.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application.
Members noted that South Wales Police, Environmental Health Pollution Control and the Licensing Authority, acting in their capacity as a Responsible Authority, objected to the application. South Wales Police and Environmental Health put forward a number of conditions that, if granted, would like applied to the licence. These conditions had been agreed by the applicant.
The Sub Committee acknowledged that the premises was subject to enforcement action by the Shared Regulatory Services and noted that action was taken by the owner to ensure that the management responsible no longer worked at the premises.
Members considered that the additional conditions agreed by the applicant could help to mitigate the issues in Caroline Street, as outlined in Claire Dewhurst’s presentation.
Members carefully considered all the representations and felt that the additional conditions agreed with South Wales Police would not negatively impact the licensing objectives or add to the negative cumulative impact in the area.
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits and considered all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint has been received stating that he refused to take a journey from Cardiff train station to Penarth after allegedly saying he was available for hire
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative asserted that the driver had not broken any rules and suggested he had had been singled out by this complaint. He was not registered with the ICO and was not legally allowed to store information about customers and their trips as he was self-employed.
The Chair noted that the allegation from the witness was that the driver was asked to take someone in his cab and said yes, but then changed his mind and refused the fare. He acknowledged that Penarth was out of the Cardiff area, but the witness’ contention was that this was not why it was refused
The driver’s representative suggested that the driver was not obligated to explain to a member of the public why he wasn’t able to take a fare. The driver added that the witness did not ask him whether he was booked, and just said ‘Penarth’ as his window was rolling down. He also suggested that it wasn’t a formal rank as it was only his taxi there.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that he was out with his family on a day out, and as they worked their way down the rank they were turned down by quite a few cabs when he said they needed to go to Penarth. A few of the drivers told them to ask the first cab on the rank, which he did. After he turned down the fare, another driver advised him that this was not allowed, and so he made a complaint. His daughter told him that it was like that every weekend when she tried to get to Penarth.
The driver reiterated that he had not heard anything from the witness other than ‘Penarth’, and would not have been able to get back in time for his next booked trip if he had accepted it. He did not have a record of it but regularly took passengers to Penarth and other destinations outside of town. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he emphasised that he had no objection at all to taking passengers anywhere they asked.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had complained about another driver too, and this driver had not been singled out.
The driver’s representative summarised that while there was an issue with some drivers cherry-picking jobs, this driver had made clear that he did not do that. He only turned this one down because he had a job booked already and wouldn’t have been able to get back in time. He had done nothing wrong legally and did not deserve to be punished.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he declared he was disqualified from driving and had received a driving ban from the DVLA.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that his offence had occurred when he was having a very bad day. He was going through a lot of stress and his wife had just filed divorce papers. He was working as a chef and finished late, and had drunk two pints. He undertook another vehicle while it was raining heavily and was pulled over. After that, he lost everything and didn’t have any other opportunities for work. He hoped that Members would give him another chance to get back on the road and earn a proper living.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was still working as a chef but was only able to do occasional part-time work as he did not have a car and it was hard to travel long distances. He relied on his wife and friends to give lifts but this was not always possible.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had made some silly mistakes but he wanted to feed his family and children. He stated he was a businessman and not aggressive
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had re-applied for a Private Hire Driver’s Licence as he had previously owned a takeaway shop which he had sold and wanted to do something comfortable and easy. He had previously been in possession of a Private Hire Driver’s Licence in Newport (6 months) and Cardiff (just under a year). He had stopped after 6 months in Newport as he did not like travelling. He had not renewed either licence.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with the Authority but was convicted for taking his daughter out of the county without the mother’s consent in 2019. He was also referred to committee in 2019 and subsequently had his licence revoked.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he first moved to Cardiff in 1994 and his daughter was born in 2012. He was then banned from the UK for 10 years and moved back to Romania. In 2014, he was accused of kidnapping his daughter. His wife moved to London and he was unable to go to his daughter’s school or doctors. His wife and daughter then moved back to Romania, and he had attended court on six occasions to try to gain custody of his daughter as she had returned from Romania with injuries.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee the driver explained that he had not seen his daughter for 4 or 5 years and she was now 12 years of age. He had received a prison sentence for taking his daughter out of the UK without her mother’s consent. Whilst in prison he was attacked. When he came out of prison he was not feeling well so he had handed in his badge. He informed the Sub Committee that he was now fit and well and wanted to come back to work as quickly as possible. He explained that it was just a family quarrel and there was no violence involved.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his DVLA licence. He was also referred to committee and subsequently had his licence revoked.
The driver explained that he had not committed any speeding offences whilst working as a taxi driver. He had been a delivery driver with his own shop and the police had caught him on camera speeding. He now had a clean driving licence. He stressed that he had never committed any crimes and had now learnt his lesson. For one and half years had had no employment, lost his licence and lost his shop. He informed the Sub Committee that he had a security job but that only provided him with 10 days’ work per month which was not enough and asked for another chance.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee the driver explained that the court had given him the chance to drive despite his points and said that if he made another mistake he would receive a 6 month ban. The police then stopped him for a worn tyre and he lost his licence for 6 months and his shop. He said that he had tried to use the train but the last one was at 10.00 pm and there were no busses. Sometimes he slept on the sofa which was hard. He explained that he had lost his licence before his taxi licence and had disclosed this information in his last application. The car with the worn tyre was his only car and the one he used as a taxi.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to:
1)
Approve the decision of the Licensing Committee at its meeting on 13 March 2024 and publish the Cumulative Impact Assessment for use with effect from 1 August 2024;
2)
Authorise the Head of Shared Regulatory Services to make administrative amendments to the documents should the need arise.